Nanny State

New York State Proposes "Bowling Shoe Law"


saddam lebowski shoes

As reported by WGRZ-TV Albany, the notoriously corrupt New York state legislature is considering a bill which would require bowling alleys to post signs warning patrons to not wear bowling shoes outside, "lest they become wet and increase the likelihood that a bowler could slip and fall when they come inside."

The bill has been sponsored in the Senate by Patrick Gallivan (R-59th District) and in the Assembly by Robin Schimminger (D-140th District), with the goal of mitigating the liability of bowling alley owners and helping them lower their insurance costs. Included in the proposed law is the prevention of lawsuits against bowling alley proprietors if their customers ignore the warning signs and injure themselves by falling on slick bowling alley surfaces while wearing bowling shoes that are specifically designed to be slippery.

This law was deemed necessary after an increase in lawsuits "in the decade since the state made smoking in bowling alleys illegal, tempting many bowlers who smoke, to sneak out for a few puffs between frames, perhaps when it's raining or snowing….who then come in, slip, and then sue."

While a new nanny state initiative creeps its way into law as a direct result of an earlier one, please check out "Smoking Bans Are No Match For New Yorkers," Reason TV's documentary on smokers finding ways to work around government attempts at social engineering:

NEXT: Riots in Stockholm Continue For Fifth Day in a Row

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Another example of how the consequences of a stupid law results in another stupid law instead of the repeal of the first stupid law.

    1. You know, government really is a vicious circle. From the point of view of the legislators, the whole problem is stupid people. First they made a law to protect stupid people from harming themselves or others by smoking. Then the dumb smokers went outside and consequently fell down. So now they need another law making it illegal for stupid people to sue for falling down.

      I don’t think it would even be possible to get it through the statists thick skulls that they’re the ones who make the stupid people possible in the first place.

      1. It’s been that way since the days of the Pharaoh, and it will never change.…..y-642.html

    2. So, it’s stupid all the way down?

      No Epi.

      1. And sideways. Never forget sideways.

      2. If there was only some other action the legislature could take that would circumvent this behavior altogether.

        If only……

  2. Or, they could heighten the premises liability standard for slip and fall cases which places a greater burden on the plaintiff. But if they did that, they wouldn’t be New York, they would be Texas or even Louisiana.

  3. “Corruption occurs nearly everywhere politics is practiced, but there are several reasons the problem appears to be endemic in Albany.”

    Actually, there’s one: The voters keep returning corrupt politicos to office.

    1. I remember the sidewalk interviews asking New Yorkers what they thought of Bloomburg’s then proposed ban on big sodas.

      Fucking pathetic sheep.

  4. This law was deemed necessary after an increase in lawsuits “in the decade since the state made smoking in bowling alleys illegal, tempting many bowlers who smoke, to sneak out for a few puffs between frames, perhaps when it’s raining or snowing….who then come in, slip, and then sue.”

    Goddamnit, I was going to guess this was the reason, but you put it right in the post! Still, I knew it!

    1. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

      (Dammit, RC, where are you when we need you? Hope you’re OK…)

      1. I’m not so sure that people slipping in bowling shoes after going outside for a smoke is that obviously foreseeable.

        1. Is it if you know anything at all about human behavior. People wear special shoes only made for indoors – Ban smoking – People go outside to smoke without taking shoes off – ?

          Maybe they couldn’t make it to “people fall,” but I bet the bowling alley operators realized people would be wearing their shoes outside, which is bad–rain or shine–for the alleys.

          1. I just mean it’s a special case. Atypical. Not what comes to most minds. And yes, I realize you are not most minds. Thank my atheist god for that.

            1. Thank all the gods.

        2. Bowling shoes are made to slide…that’s the whole point. Any regular bowler who doesn’t already know not to wear their bowling shoes outside is a complete moron.

          When I was growing up in the 70s our local bowling alley already had signs posted not to wear them outside, mainly because the soles get scuffed up, rendering them useless. Come to think of it, the signs were about wearing *rental* shoes outside. I guess if you want to destroy your own pair, that used to be your own business.

          1. THey also don’t want you to wear them outside because they pick up grit and wreck up the finish on the alleys.

        3. What difference if it is or not for the owner?

          If you have on slick shoes and you walk in water then back on a slick floor it is foreseeable to you. You are responsible for yourself.

  5. It takes balls to push a regulation like this one.

    1. This turkey is right up their alley. They’re obviously in the right frame of mind to spare nobody.

      1. The reps from Brooklyn are split on this one.

      2. This bill is right in the gutter.

  6. THANK GOD somebody finally did something!

  7. OT:
    Democrat Governor of Vermont, metaphorically rapes his mentally handicapped neighbor, stealing his home.…..29893/1050

    This is the kind of conduct one expects only heartless libertarians and greedy Republicans to engage in.

    1. Dodge said he dropped out of U-32 High School after ninth grade.

      I didn’t find anything that says that he is mentally handicapped, but let me just say that if you fail out of U-32 you are for sure stupid as shit.

      Also, I voted against that guy.

  8. The original piece of reporting is an all-around writing and editing horrorshow, but this is awesome:

    Is this then, another example of lawmakers attempting to legislate common sense?

    Perhaps, said Schimminger, but that make it unnecessary.

    “It was legislation which lead to laws requiring restaurants to post signs instructing how to save someone from choking, Schimminger told Channel 2 News. “We have legislation that puts warnings on cigarette packages….so there are many laws that that provide for warnings to people to do what is common sense. There may be people who will look up and see the warning sign, and they just might be reminded that it is unsafe with these particular type of shoes that are designed to to slide to begin with.”

    Presumably, it should read “but that does not make it unnecessary.” But I love that the guy is just like, (a) it was legislation that made laws, and (b) everything we do is fucking retarded.

    1. Well now I know how to torture you when I abduct all the womyenz for my basement horror chamber.

      Electricity for some, snakes for others, but for nikki….lots and lots of poorly written pieces of writing.

      1. Just remember, it’s only torture if you take away my red pen.

        1. You’ll be chained to a chair in front of a desk, a desk covered in poorly written copy, and the shackles on your wrists will have enough slack for you to edit all that copy.

          but you will be surrounded by red pens hanging from the ceiling, and all will be just out of your reach.

          1. Hmm…[thinks about writing in blood]

            1. Which would make you the nikki de sade.

            2. Somebody’s read Niven & Pournelle’s, Inferno.

              “I’m sure you’ll think of something.” (shudder.)

              1. I’ve not read that actually. I just went with your classic Greek hell tortures ala Sisyphus and Tantalus.

                nikki is really into greek.

                1. nikki is really into greek.

                  +1 jeans that zip up the back.

                  Inferno is worth your time. The sequel? Only if you’re a Niven fan. They’ve both gotten a lot more ham-handed with age. Part of me really wants to read their Lucifer’s Hammer remake that’s supposed to be coming out next year; the other part wonders if it can be anymore cringe-worthy than the worse blakplotation scenes in Lucifer’s.

                  1. The original wasn’t theirs, just Pournelle’s. I thought it was really ballsy and gives me a chuckle just to contemplate how politically incorrect it is, with the good guys fighting with poison gas, and the bad guys being black cannibals, and finally the good guys taking the blacks as slaves. (Yes, I know, not strictly black, but as Fulani said in another context, “multi-racial, black-led”.) Nuclear power being a good-guys’ tool has lost its politically incorrect cachet, but if you can cast your mind back a bit, it’s a little extra something.

                    It’s also fun how it trashes Checkov many times over by thoroughly describing detailed preparations that wind up for naught. I understand Stephen King does that sort of thing too, but not enough to get me to read him.

                    1. Both Lucifer’s and Inferno were written by both of them.

                      It is phenomenally non-PC, but that said, I wonder if Pournelle actually had to tone down some of the stories he saw when he was helping out Sam Yorty’s campaign? One of my favorite characterizations from the book were the disillusioned hippies on the commune next to the Senator’s ranch.

    2. writing and editing horrorshow

      +1 nadsat, Devotchka.

  9. “lest they become wet and increase the likelihood that a bowler could slip and fall when they come inside”

    Um, not sure who they are quoting there but I’m pretty sure that person has never bowled in their lives.

    The risk is not that you would slip, the risk is that you *WONT* slip but rather your foot will stick as you release the ball causing your entire body to be hurtled forward down the alley.

    Having had this happen to me before I can assure you that it is a quite unpleasant experience, but it is more damaging to the ego than the body and I cannot honestly imagine anyone being harmed sufficiently by it to even require minor medical treatment so I cant imagine that any lawsuits would be valid.

    1. I think the issue is not supposed to be that you’ll slide down the lane, but that you’ll slip and fall somewhere else indoors between the door and the lane.

      1. Nope, bowling shoes are intentionally made to be slick and slide. If they get wet they become stickier, not slipperier.

        Serious league bowlers actually carry a special sock to wear on the outside of the shoe on their slide foot (the one opposite the hand that holds the ball) when they are between frames just so they aren’t taking a chance of getting any moisture on it. They will also frequently put chalk powder on the bottom of their foot to make it more slick.

        If you haven’t guessed I used to be a somewhat serious bowler 🙂

    2. Ahh….you should have a look at civil court sometimes. The plaintiffs are all wearing neck braces. Nothing shows up on x-ray, but many super-expert docs will testify that the pain and injury are real.

      1. I will be the first to freely admit there are some who game the system and fake injuries.

        For most people, though, civil court is a completely unpleasant, drawn-out, expensive nightmare.

        1. “…there are some who game the system and fake injuries.”

          NO SHIT.

      2. Soft tissue injuries don’t show on x-ray images.

        1. Shh. There’s demagoguing going on, Tonio. We don’t have time for your “facts”.

        2. Spoken like a true plaintiff’s lawyer!

    1. Too bad for you, because I will be kidnapping him and dressing him up like Maggie Hassan one state over.

  10. I am assuming that slip-and-fall cases in NY are tried in civil court with juries? Juries that award idiot fucknuggets and cons millions for stabbing themselves in the eye with a restaurant fork, pouring scalding coffee on their own crotches, or someone who is butthurt because there isnt a bowl and spoon in the soup can like the picture on the label shows?

    I wonder what would happen if we began to reward idiocy?

    1. It’s really easy to be flip about “Stellas” when you know nothing about them.

      1. Not only do I know nothing about them, I have no idea what they are.


            1. Even after reading more about the coffee case, and taking into account she was an eggshell plaintiff with terrible circulation, how can she be less than 50 percent negligent for putting the cup of coffee in her own lap while driving?

              1. While I am not sympathetic to Stella, you obviously didn’t read enough. She was a passenger in the vehicle, and it wasn’t moving.

      2. It’s pretty easy when you know plenty about them too.

        1. I was just laughing and thinking the same.

    2. Actually Louisiana kinda fixed this problem. The straw that broke the camel’s back was a case in New Orleans ( of course ) where a burglar cut his hand while breaking into a house. He sued the homeowner and won a huge settlement ( N.O. jury, of course ).

      Now we have a law barring anyone from suing if they are injured in the course of committing a crime. Any crime, including trespassing.

        1. I will have to google it. That has been 10 or more years ago.

          Simultaneously there was a case in Catahoula parish where whordes of peckerwoods would swarm over a sandy gravel pit on weekends, tearing down the no trespassing signs and generally ruining the place.

          Some idiot turned his 4-wheeler over and broke his back, then sued the landowner. Of course he won.

          1. Your burglar case is, in all likelihood, an urban myth.

            1. I see that.

              1. Not the same case, but a very similar one from Illinois. The reason the bar owners were found liable is because they booby-trapped the bar, which is a legal no-no if the intruder would be severely injured or killed.


            2. Perhaps, NK, but the case of Bodine v. Enterprise High School is fairly close to his point. Though trespassing /= burglary, they’re both crimes that should extinguish liability for the landowner, IMHO.

              Then there’s the case of the cabbie getting sued for pinning a purse snatcher against a wall.

              I’m glad that LA enacted the law Suthenboy mentions, even if the original lawsuit he talked about never existed.

              1. And Gray Ghost gives me a dose of karma for showing him up on the other thread.

            3. But it is plausible. Bodine v. Enterprise High School isn’t a myth.

              1. Preview works in Chrome/Reasonable, but it doesn’t show updates to the thread. Sigh.

                I just chalk it up to ‘minds thinking alike’, but it is kinda funny.

                Contributory negligence, like frivolous litigation, is one of those ideas that needs to be more widely embraced in the law. OTOH, perhaps CN is, and we only hear about the few outliers like the cabbie case, or the kid falling through the skylight?

                One of my favorites was Norman v. Honda of America, where, in 1992, a pair of nursing students got blitzed, backed their Honda Civic down a boat ramp in Galveston at 2 AM, ended up drowning one of them when she couldn’t get her seat belt off, yet it was the car’s fault. I remember when I first read about the case that the judgment was $23 million for the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was only 25% negligent.

                I was surprised today, re-reading the case, that the award got bumped to $65 million, and also they didn’t settle. They should have, as the 1st Court of Appeals ended up reversing 11 years later. I wonder how much Honda cut them a check for, as I don’t see any writ history that the Normans went to the TX Supreme Court?

                But yeah, get ass-hammered, back your car down a boat ramp into Galveston Bay, drown, and you’re not primarily at fault.

          2. …whordes…

            A whorde? Is that a large group of unruly prostitutes? Are you saying Ghengis Khan was a pimp?

            1. Well, actually yeah. Kinda. Normally the 4-wheeler has a slutty redneck chick on the back, usually in shorts and a bikini top.

              Thank you for the correction.

              1. I think “whordes” is a great new word and should be used more often.

      1. I practice in New Orleans and one of the craziest cases on the books is where a guest at the Hyatt (or Hilton) was murdered while walking to the hotel. His estate sued and said the hotel should have offered him protection and/or warning since the knew it could be a dangerous neighborhood (downtown). He won a bunch of money and that heightened standard premises owners owed people not even technically on their property but near it, were nevertheless held liable.

        1. Hyatt v. Banks. And if you had read it, you would know the owner of the hotel also had title to the premises where Banks was murdered.

          1. “…the owner of the hotel also had title to the premises where Banks was murdered.”

            Unless the owner personally committed the murder or hired someone to do it, I fail to see how he can be held liable.

            Oh, wait…New Orleans….nevermind.

            1. Oh wait, hundreds of years of civil law holding innskeepers accountable for the safety of their guests.

              you can agree or disagree with that premise, if you like, but your demogoguery is entirely misinformed.

              1. Civil trial lawyer?

              2. Or serial plaintiff?

              3. “The walkway from Loyola Avenue to the Louisiana Superdome is a public servitude of passage, contractually acquired from Refco by the City of New Orleans and the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District.”

                I have read it. You are simply wrong.

                1. I’m constantly amazed at the certitude liberals have even when they are manifestly wrong on simple facts, never mind important issues.

                  1. You dont think social justice is an important issue?

                    Some poor schmuck staying a hotel is assaulted on the street while the fat-cat hotel owner watches through his monocle from the top floor window laughing maniacally, shouldnt he be punished?

              4. Oh wait, hundreds of years of civil law holding innskeepers accountable for the safety of their guests.


                Are you fucking trolling?

                The guy was killed outside the hotel. Now if he’d been killed in the parking lot, there might be a case, but not if he was out in the streets of New Orleans.

                1. Exactly and I think I getting Suthenboy’s sarcasm. The issue with the Hyatt case was one of geographic scope of the hotel owner’s liability for the safety of its patron. Here in crazyland, I mean New Orleans, it’s a plaintiff lawyer’s paradise. Juries here hate da man and will give you a $1 million for a hang nail. If you remember, New Orleans sued gun manufacturers for guns being used in crimes. Baton Rouge (which is VERU conservative) stepped in a enacted legislation shielding gun makers and sellers from these frivolous lawsuits. Basically, democrats = plaintiff’s dream, republicans = anti-lawsuit.

                  So it doesn’t surprise me that New York has a problem with frivolous slip and fall lawsuits. But because they are New York, they go about fixing it the bass ackwards way.

        2. You would know more about this than I would. All my info is second hand or from media.

          I only know about the gravel pit case because I own land next to the pit and know the owner of the pit.

          Prior to the lawsuit he had the sheriff give out tickets to trespassers and the following weekend his scale house and front end loader were wrecked. He then hired a security gaurd, but essentially left the riders alone. His reward was the lawsuit.

  11. Did New York pass an alt-text ban?

  12. So it’s nannies and assholes, alternating, all the way down?

  13. One problem with this law is that if now a jury finds that the warning is too small or not adequately posted, the very requirement in the law will be seen as grounds for a judgement against the bowling alley.

  14. I would think that putting water on the sole of a bowling shoe would only make it stickier, especially if it had a leather sole.

  15. The New York statist nannies seem to be lacking in imagination, or maybe chutzpah. They need to ban bowling altogether. I mean, it’s DANGEROUS! You can smash your finger between two balls, you can sprain your wrist if your technique is poor, and you can get a blister on your thumb if the holes are not sized properly for your hand. That’s over and above the problem of falls while wearing those slippery shoes. Other than these intrepid legislators, who else can protect the poor helpless bowlers? If they don’t care about the older, overweight bowling alley patrons, then think of the bored high schoolers who are known to bowl few frames on a weekend and are running considerable risks doing so — THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! Do the right thing and eliminate this dangerous activity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.